at this point, i got "broadsided" so to speak, and was asked to shift away from a discussion about the cathars to considering some of the other tarot theories out there. fair enough. i brought it on.
it seems fair to say that there are a few things we know about the history of the tarot which most people agree upon. evidence from existing cards and writings, for example, tell us the approximate date and location of its first introduction in europe. researchers have been ablt to find an abundant source of images similar to those used in the tarot. but that's where where the hard evidence stops. it is in the interpretaion of these images that we are having discussions like this. if we are to agree with dummett, that the trumps were just another suit added to an existing deck of cards and that it didn't have any other meaning than taking tricks, then we need not go any further. but many of us have looked into other possibilities.
the use of common themes was the way art was presented in the middle ages. but the actual meanings remain open to interpretation. even if we are to assume that these images always should be interpreted in their "traditional" sense, we find discrepancies. for example, let's look at the essay by vitali
http://www.letarot.it/page.aspx?id=5, since it was referenced earlier.
although i don't intend to go through each and every card, nor thinkg it's necessary to make my point, let's use the fool as an example. is the fool in the tarot a lowly beggar because similar imges can be found that place him in that light? or is he an evolved spiritual being since, as vitali has noted, he has been placed next to the world card, or that there are references from the bible like: "If any man among you seems to be wise, let him become a fool that he may be wise" (1 corinthians 3:18-19) or "fools for christ's sake" (1 coninthians 4:10)? there are other references which can be thought of in that light - in 13th century italy, wandering preachers were often referred to as "bizoccone" or "holy fools." even some of the symbolism of the images noted by vitali can be construed differently. for example, he says that in some decks, the fool is shown in nakedness, and quotes ripa as saying, "Foolishness is depicted naked, because the fool shows his defects to all, without any shame." however, many of the figures in medieval art were depicted naked for a different reason - to represent purity and innocence, as in pictures of venus or angels.
in addition, his example of the feather worn in the fools cap is interpreted as "Feathers were given to Mercury, because, when speaking - as he was the God - his words used to fly through the air, as if they had wings.... The feathers on the head of the Fool thus represent the very elements which the fool is lacking in, that is speed and intellect, besides suitable words." this only makes sense if we assume the lowly position of the fool. but why does the feather's significance need to be twisted around into what the fool lacks? why couldn't it mean what is on face value, indicating that the fool possesses the qualities of the feather? (the feather, as a symbol of wings, can also be taken as a sign of being close to an angel). the answer is because it does not fit into his picture of who the fool is. the same can be said of his interpretaion of what the stick the fool is carrying really represents. although he can find references that seem to support his opinions, the fool's staff can also be seen to be one which holds his leather pouch - something cathar perfects were known to carry around with them, which usually contained copies of the new testament.
i don't think we need to go through each card and point out similar divergent uses of images and symbols. the point is that they are often used to support our own preconceptions and theories. (and i'm quite certain that i will be accused of exactly the same fault). saying that the tarot is a system of moral instruction, for example, thus becomes an exercise in presenting the associatted images in a similar light to what our theory demands.
what seems to have been an important factor in "testing" these theories is their ability to be all-inclusive to all the cards in the deck. and this seems to have been the problem with some theories like mokley's triumph pattern and betts' revelation concept (as pointed out by o'neill).
the bottom line is that the identification of similar images found from common or traditional sources does not in itself prove their meaning in the tarot. it's all open to interpretaion. in vilali's own words, the tarot presents itself as a riddle to those who do not succumb to drummett's conclusions. and the purpose of a riddle is to be solved. by defiinition, a riddle consists of a question or puzzle presented in such a way as to require a level of ingenuity in order discover its answer. it usually involves cunning, deceptive or misleading qualities. in other words, it's meaning is rarely apparent on a superficial or obvious level. in the same way, the tarot, as a riddle to be solved, is open to interpretation and discussion. otherwise, we would not be having this discussion in the first place, as all information would be in and everyone would be in agreement.
what i have presented in writing my book is just another way of looking at this ambiguous and mysterious set of cards. i think it would be extremely arrogant and presumptious of anyone to assume that they have a lock on the truth and dismiss all others who disagree.
